An honest answer for a newbie, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
hmmm... ok... but those sciences, is the problem of repeatability the only thing they have in common with macroevolution? iow, are they observeable? falsifiable?

---

Yes, macroevolution is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab.

quote:

---

if your paragraph is acceptable, it seems to me mine is also... yet, i doubt it will be

---

I have to agree with compmage. If you had any evidence at all for a God, this might have some weight. As it is, one can fill in practically anything and have it stand on equal footing with your paragraph. In the case of evolution, we can step out of the word game and point ot some evidence.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
Yes, macroevolution is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab.I have to agree with compmage. If you had any evidence at all for a God, this might have some weight. As it is, one can fill in practically anything and have it stand on equal footing with your paragraph. In the case of evolution, we can step out of the word game and point ot some evidence.[/B][/QUOTE]to avoid possible future misunderstandings over semantics, what do you consider "evidence?"... also, are your standards for evidence the same regardless of the discussion, or do they vary depending on whether or not the subject fits within your worldview?concerning your first paragraph above, what if i said, "Yes, creation is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab." it seems to me that believing something to be true, when the fact of its truth is yet to be established, goes equally across lines of presupposition... maybe you can tell me why astronomy, for example, is acceptable as an example (given the context of your statement) and creation isn't...

I have lost count of the number of times I or others have posted what would qualify as falsifying evidence against evolution.Look. Here's a fossilised Apatosaur turd. Find a single blade of grass in it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
to avoid possible future misunderstandings over semantics, what do you consider "evidence?"

---

Information which can be, and has been, verified by third parties. Or, conclusions derived form such information. In other words, that which colloquially goes by the term objective.

quote:

---

also, are your standards for evidence the same regardless of the discussion

---

That is the idea. However, there are exceptions. You can't use, for example, logic to verify logic itself. That would be circular, though it may not matter since the subject of the hypothetical question would be the validity of logic. It gets very messy very quickly.Though I don't think this is what you mean, just for clarity, I'll add that certain subjects imply certain rules of evidence. The phrase 'science' implies certain methods. The phrase 'theology' does not imply the same methods. I don't think all these things can be outlined in advance.

quote:

---

or do they vary depending on whether or not the subject fits within your worldview?

---

Are asking if I alter criteria for evidence depending upon my preconcieved notions of how the world is organized? Not that I am aware of...And I don't see that any subject is outside of my worldview, assuming this to means written off a priori.

quote:

---

concerning your first paragraph above, what if i said, "Yes, creation is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab."

---

I'd say this is fine as far as it goes. You can't really ask a creationists to model a creation event in the lab (except as a counter to the frequently encountered creationist argument that evolutionists can't abiogenesis in the lab) But it doesn't go very far. What you can ask of a creationist is the same thing asked of geologist, cosmologist and biologists. You can ask for supporting evidence.

quote:

---

it seems to me that believing something to be true, when the fact of its truth is yet to be established, goes equally across lines of presupposition

---

I don't believe that the Truth-with-a-capitol-T of anything has been established, so this doesn't really bother me.

quote:

---

maybe you can tell me why astronomy, for example, is acceptable as an example (given the context of your statement) and creation isn't

---

Astronomy is a collection of tentative truths based upon whatever evidence we can gather. We can't build a scale model exploding star and put it through its paces. We have to improvise and extrapolate. We build telescopes and look around. We cannot force the right observations to show up at the right time. We build computer models based upon what information we have and check them against observation. We tweak values and see what happens. But it isn't like the self contained experiments one could do in the lab with, say a prism and light bulb.Creationist are more than welcome to do the same scale-model building, improvising and extrapolating, though I have not seen a good attempt at it.The difference between the two is that astronomy is build upon and supported by what information we have. Scientists do not simply make it up and believe it until proven wrong. Creation is not built upon what evidence we have. It is a holdover from many thousand years ago when we had very little information. And yes it was made up. It was made up to describe the indescribable and has not yet been verified despite the passing of those thousands of years. In fact, the case for it has gotten weaker.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Maybe you missed what my original statement. What I contend is that at the edges of our universe, all bets are off.Why do I think that causality is tied to space-time? ... a cause PRECEEDS its effect, for example. If the cause occurs after the effect it is hardly causality as we experience it, yes? Describe to me a cause or an effect that does not occur in space?"
--But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here."Warped to zero, TC. Divide by zero and see what happens. Lets see, space-time exists but is infinitely massive and occupying zero space--- of wait, it is space in the case of the BB. But it has no size....I am not making this stuff up. It has been part of cosmology for a hundred years. Hawking, in fact, has gone to great trouble to get around the problem of the breakdown of the laws of nature at the BB singularity."
--Warped to zero? I thought a singularity occupies infinitely small space, not zero. It technically does have size, as I explained earlier, they are 'asymptotes' in space-time. Matter and other entities do not disappear in a singularity, they are simply confined to an infinitely small space."Sure. It ought to be settled by cosmologists, eventually."
--So you really don't know if it is a falsifiable notion? Synonymous is saying that you don't know if it scientifically applicable or not. This still seems to be sophistry to me, a seemingly plausible, but fallacious or misleading argument. But maybe I'm still missing something?-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here.

---

Then what are we arguing about?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Are you implying that scientists tend to resist new ideas because they feel pressure from their peers to continue to think the way the group thinks?

---

quote:

---

no, i know it's competitive, even within disciplines...

---

Actually, it is very nearly only competitive within disciplines (and frequently within sub-disciplines. Molecular Neuropsychologists usually don't get into heated debates over the particulars of, say, childhood language acquisition with the Developmental Psychologists, even though both groups are Research Psychologists.), because only those with the specialized knowledge to be able to understand the particulars of the evidence and arguments are going to be able to disagree with each other.

quote:

---

i'm saying that scientists are human too, they bring their own presuppositions to the table...

---

The only presuppositions permissable in all of science are,1)that nature is goverend by natural laws which are more or less constsnt, and2) that these laws are knowable. [QUOTE]those who believe in macroevolution, for example, know it's not "scientific" (repeatable, falsifiable, etc) so they aren't going to be quick to adopt a new paradigm if it includes a disbelief in macroevolution.. that's just an example, by the way[/B][/QUOTE]Other posters demolish this nicely. I have nothing to add.

quote:

---

to avoid possible future misunderstandings over semantics, what do you consider "evidence?"... also, are your standards for evidence the same regardless of the discussion, or do they vary depending on whether or not the subject fits within your worldview?

---

Please read through this short but excellent explanation of science, what it is, how it is conducted, and what it isn't.science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comIt will clarify what we are talking about wrt standards of evidence.

quote:

---

concerning your first paragraph above, what if i said, "Yes, creation is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab." it seems to me that believing something to be true, when the fact of its truth is yet to be established, goes equally across lines of presupposition... maybe you can tell me why astronomy, for example, is acceptable as an example (given the context of your statement) and creation isn't...

---

creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"creationism as a scientific theoryReligious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists."

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
The only presuppositions permissable in all of science are,

​

1)that nature is goverend by natural laws which are more or less constsnt, and

​

2) that these laws are knowable.

---

not denying that... just saying that presuppositions do creep in, and they limit the ability of some to seriously entertain new paradigms, until such time as the existing paradigm can't be upheld any longer, viz solid state, etc [QUOTE]those who believe in macroevolution, for example, know it's not "scientific" (repeatable, falsifiable, etc) so they aren't going to be quick to adopt a new paradigm if it includes a disbelief in macroevolution.. that's just an example, by the way[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Other posters demolish this nicely. I have nothing to add.

---

demolished what? it was an example, but if you like we can change it to abiogenesis

"Then what are we arguing about? "
--The validity of your 'theory of no causality' and the way you attempt to apply it.--Edit - Apparently, my initial thoughts on the subject have not been overthrown.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Then what are we arguing about? "
--The validity of your 'theory of no causality' and the way you attempt to apply it.

​

--Edit - Apparently, my initial thoughts on the subject have not been overthrown.

​

---

Then would you mind restating your position/objection as I can no longer tell what you are on about? Something substantial would be appreciated.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Forgiven - to the best of my knowledge, we do not currently have anything more for abiogenesis than hypotheses. These hypotheses are being tested in repeatable, falsifiable etc. ways. When we have a well-supported model, we will have a theory. And it will, indeed be scientific, because it will have been tested, and those tests will be repeatable.You jump to abiogenesis from macroevolution because we've demonstrated that evolution is scientific by the above definition. Unless you'd like to tell us why it's not?

"Then would you mind restating your position/objection as I can no longer tell what you are on about? Something substantial would be appreciated."
--Quoting relevant segments of my first post #49here:

quote:

---

--I am curious about Johns notion of 'no causality'. I have followed this thread briefly, and have seen little scientific application, and much more semantics. Explain to me this 'theory' of no causality. Is there potential falsification? If space-time does not exist, thus there being no room even at a singularity...explain to me how existence is formed with only non-existence to work with? Why is your scenario scientific and not wishful thinking? Your 'explanation' seems to be only correct in rhetoric, but completely inapplicable in reality.

---

--Emphasis on the italicized. What is unclear here?------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]--I am curious about Johns notion of 'no causality'. I have followed this thread briefly, and have seen little scientific application, and much more semantics. Explain to me this 'theory' of no causality. Is there potential falsification? If space-time does not exist, thus there being no room even at a singularity...explain to me how existence is formed with only non-existence to work with? Why is your scenario scientific and not wishful thinking? Your 'explanation' seems to be only correct in rhetoric, but completely inapplicable in reality. [/Quote]--Emphasis on the italicized. What is unclear here?[/B][/QUOTE]Wow. I tell you that I can't figure out what you are talking about and you post the same thing again. Brilliant!!!!!------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Wow. I tell you that I can't figure out what you are talking about and you post the same thing again. Brilliant!!!!!"
--That's why I said, 'what is unclear here', or didn't you get to that part? There is plenty of my post which should not require elaboration. In order for your theory of 'no causality' or whatever you'd like to call it to have scientific merit it should be falsifiable. Rather than scientifically plausible, I find your argumental approach to your problem of creation ex nihilo as wishful thinking and an argument which seems to be only supported by semantics.--You seemed to understand my initial post by disagreeing with it in your response and saying:

quote:

---

Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply.

---

------------------